It was extremely convenient that they on their return to earth, they smashed into the train station exactly next to where Lois was last, so that she could comfortably run in at the last moment and console him.

Again, don't remember it to well so I'm basically talking from a place of ignorance, but I think that once they got into orbit Superman would have had more of an opportunity to force the fight towards, like, the ocean, or the northern Canadian provinces where basically no one lives. Once you're that high up, going down at even a slightly different angle will take you hundreds if not thousands of miles away, but nope they just when exactly straight back down into Metropolis.

The counterargument is that it wasn't possible for Superman to take the fight to an uninhabited area as Zod wouldn't have followed or allowed it because his intent was killing every last human.

But the choreography of the Metropolis fight didn't seem to reflect that intent until the train station scene.

I wouldn't call 300 great. It's entertaining, and very visually stimulating, but I think it's also pretty dumb (and a little racist). Why do you think it is, I'm curious?

I'll agree that Snyder is pretty uninhibited, but I don't think I'd call what he has "vision." Please excuse the use of this cliche, but I think he's a lot of style and no substance. He's very "go big or go home," but the stuff he goes big with seems to me to boil down to stuff he thinks looks cool. I don't see a lot of deep thought behind it.

I think 300 is basically a masterpiece of its kind. I think it is the one film in Snyder's canon where all the stars aligned, right from the script, to visuals, to the actors, to the performances, everything came through an delivered. It is not the deepest film out there sure, but I believe in the auteur theory. I believe in form over content, and form does not mean style, it means the mis-en-scene and the composition and how the film is staged. And that to me is an absolute triumph in 300. It kinda reminded me of Sergei Eisenstein.

And the imagery is so bold, so subversively macho. And the central performance by Gerard Butler is one for the ages. I think everything works in 300, a superb achievement and Snyder's fully realized film.

Superman was able to get Zod into orbit. Could have made a little more of an effort to force Zod to an uninhabited area is all I'm saying.

If you compare it to the excellent Smallville fight, the Metropolis one was strangely flat as the tension, Zod making good on his word to 'make them suffer, take them all from you one by one' and Superman preventing it -- the whole point of the tussle -- is absent from the fight sequence till the final moments.

Nary a scratch on both combatants, nor were the stakes once raised (the tanker scene could have been used to show that Zod meant business, that he'd make any human he could lay his hands on suffer). For the momentous act of killing Zod, the buildup was sorely lacking. It'd have made for more dramatic sense (to me, anyhow) if soon after 'Krypton had its chance' the fight cut straight to the train scene with Zod mad with grief, attempting to fry anyone he sees with his heat vision.

I think 300 is basically a masterpiece of its kind. I think it is the one film in Snyder's canon where all the stars aligned, right from the script, to visuals, to the actors, to the performances, everything came through an delivered. It is not the deepest film out there sure, but I believe in the auteur theory. I believe in form over content, and form does not mean style, it means the mis-en-scene and the composition and how the film is staged. And that to me is an absolute triumph in 300. It kinda reminded me of Sergei Eisenstein.

And the imagery is so bold, so subversively macho. And the central performance by Gerard Butler is one for the ages. I think everything works in 300, a superb achievement and Snyder's fully realized film.

Well, I think content and form are equally important myself.

I also don't see how the macho-ness of 300 is particularly subversive. It's a pretty standard male power fantasy, just turned up to 11.

Even on those grounds, though, the movie has structural problems. The entire subplot with Leonidas' wife is basically padding.

Isn't death and destruction central to the Day of Doom story? The resultant grief and guilt.

It talks a lot about whether Superman was justified in his actions in his battle with Doomsday.

And it talks about how he kind of just waltzed back into the world. Out of the millions of deaths that resulted from that battle, and the aftermath, the only person who was able to come back was Superman.

He was confronted with the sheer number of deaths that were a direct and indirect result of what happened when he fought Doomsday.

Some of the questions posed were "Why didn't you save more people?", and "Why didn't you take the fight out of Metropolis?"

I mean, his battle with Doomsday injured and killed people. He didn't take time to save anyone. He remained focused solely on his fight, and he gets called on that.

Sounds kind of familiar, right?

__________________They say… "What an unusual person. What a smashing bonnet!"

3: Instead of just leaving Zod for no apparent reason, Superman tackles Zod out of the scout ship and forces him into the event horizon with the others.

How much a fight there should be between 2 and 3 is debatable but I honestly wouldn't mind if there wasn't much of one. For one, I don't really see why a sufficiently big/long fight between the main hero and the main villain is necessary (a lot of great action movies don't play out that way), and for one I kind of like the idea that Superman beats Zod by doing something clever like using the Phantom Zone drive instead of using his powers and raw brute force. If a central theme in the movie is Superman defining himself as a person in contrast to what Zod stands for, using his intellect which is a result largely of his upbringing to save the day instead of his Kyrptonian inherited powers for brute force the way Zod would is a little more thematically effective.

And, ultimately, does the number of punches thrown between the scout ship and the event horizon really matter? We end up in the same place anyway. As long as the pace is slow enough that people can take in what's happening (and really, Man of Steel's single biggest flaw is that they didn't do that throughout most of the film), then I'm all fine with making Zod's exit from the movie pretty quick.

I could dig all that but it still doesn't bother me the way it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

I don't think it does. The central conflict, while not very well defined I think, was already resolved by that point. Superman stopped the invasion, Superman had already decided to stand with humanity instead of against it, Superman destroyed any hope of using the codex to repopulate Krypton on Earth. Thematically, the conflict was resolved. Killing Zod was a loose end of the plot.

I wasn't arguing whether or not the conflict was resolved by that point. I was saying that the final fight is tied to the the central conflict, which you said it had nothing to with (or at least agreed with someone who said that). Is it a bit extraneous? Sure. I've already agreed that it could have been better integrated into the main narrative. This would be the second time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

There's also the bit were Superman slams Zod's face into the side of a building and then drags it along at high speed, completely wrecking the outside of the building. And there's the fact that Superman doesn't even make a token attempt to force the fight to a less populated area.

And, really, the "it's his first outing" defense doesn't hold water for me. If you're going to pull that off, you then have to have Superman actually acknowledge that he made a lot of mistakes and has to do better when it comes to being Superman.

I think that is the only moment where Superman flat out causes direct damage to a building. It didn't bother me much because the buildings are empty and I've similar action in the comics. As for taking Zod to a less populated area, I'm not sure Zod's tenacity or tactical knowledge would have allowed that. Also, Zod wasn't after Superman as he was in SII, he was after all of humanity -- he would find his way back to a populated area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

But why wouldn't it have been enough? What constitutes "enough?" Why is "enough" something that's needed in the first place. What makes a good action sequence in your mind?

"Enough" would be necessary because "enough" is what satisfies the conflict. For me a good action sequence would both satisfy the conflict and also have a personal and emotional element. Superman v the World Builder has no personal interaction and therefore rings hollow. It satisfies a plot point but for that to be the penultimate action it would have been personally and emotionally flat.

Now, if it end plays out how you listed above, then I think that is satisfactory but again, I don't have a real problem with how it is now.

Overall, I think we've gotten a bit away from my original challenge to your post. All I was saying was was that the final conflict is tied to the main conflict of the film and I still stand by that. We seem to agree, on some level, with most everything else.

I also don't see how the macho-ness of 300 is particularly subversive. It's a pretty standard male power fantasy, just turned up to 11.

Its extremeness is subversive, specially in today's time. Butler said the Spartans could be seen as the villains very easily. Leonidas is absolutely savage, bloodthirsty on the battlefield, butchering his enemies with relish, hacking them to pieces. He's also very arrogant and intimidating, basically a guy who be absolutely terrifying were he not on your side. And all this presented without the slightest dash of irony or modernism, just served up straight on the rocks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

Even on those grounds, though, the movie has structural problems. The entire subplot with Leonidas' wife is basically padding.

That I agree is padding, but Snyder said it helped him slightly break the extreme machismo of the film with a female presence. And I think the payoff of her subplot is good.

Its extremeness is subversive, specially in today's time. Butler said the Spartans could be seen as the villains very easily. Leonidas is absolutely savage, bloodthirsty on the battlefield, butchering his enemies with relish, hacking them to pieces. He's also very arrogant and intimidating, basically a guy who be absolutely terrifying were he not on your side. And all this presented without the slightest dash of irony or modernism, just served up straight on the rocks.

All of that sounds like pretty standard mainstream western ideals of strength and masculinity to me. Presenting and glorifying the dominant culture's standard of masculinity, negative aspects and all, in a completely un-ironic fashion doesn't sound like any kind of subversion to me. It kind of sounds like the opposite of subversion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slumcat

That I agree is padding, but Snyder said it helped him slightly break the extreme machismo of the film with a female presence. And I think the payoff of her subplot is good.

It served that structural purpose, but that doesn't mean it was well constructed. You can break up the tone of a story with a subplot and also have that subplot be both relevant to the story and have it's own worth and substance.

Also, what was the payoff exactly? I don't remember being wowed by it.

It talks a lot about whether Superman was justified in his actions in his battle with Doomsday.

And it talks about how he kind of just waltzed back into the world. Out of the millions of deaths that resulted from that battle, and the aftermath, the only person who was able to come back was Superman.

He was confronted with the sheer number of deaths that were a direct and indirect result of what happened when he fought Doomsday.

Some of the questions posed were "Why didn't you save more people?", and "Why didn't you take the fight out of Metropolis?"

I mean, his battle with Doomsday injured and killed people. He didn't take time to save anyone. He remained focused solely on his fight, and he gets called on that.

Sounds kind of familiar, right?

It certainly does! But the criticism here is not that Superman doesn't get called out on it, is that for a movie grounded in reality, it surreally sweeps all the death and destruction under the rug. Superman isn't posed the question, the movie doesn't pose the question. No questions asked, seemingly.

I mean Superman made the ultimate sacrifice, taking the life of the last of his kind. So the deaths in the last act had to count for something. Snyder himself said that "in ancient mythology, mass deaths are used to symbolize disasters". So "Superman... is probably the closest we get. It's a way of recounting the myth".

Sndyer's version, his mythology of Superman is built upon those deaths. An inexperienced Superman killed Zod in his first costumed outing. He had to because Zod caused the death of millions and will cause the death of millions more had he lived.

The other central question posed in Day of Doom is if Superman wasn't around, would there be fewer Doomsdays (monsters seeking to confront Superman) or more Coast Citys (a disaster that only happened because Superman wasn't there)? And the answer suggested from the movie is the former!

Also, what was the payoff exactly? I don't remember being wowed by it.

I don't recall there being a pay-off in that movie at all (except all the bad guys got what was coming to them), but I do recall being wildly entertained by that film. I'm ridiculously excited about the second one, just because it looks as mindless and gorgeous as the first one.

__________________They say… "What an unusual person. What a smashing bonnet!"

All of that sounds like pretty standard mainstream western ideals of strength and masculinity to me. Presenting and glorifying the dominant culture's standard of masculinity, negative aspects and all, in a completely un-ironic fashion doesn't sound like any kind of subversion to me. It kind of sounds like the opposite of subversion.
it.

Its not widely present in the mainstream where the hero is a toured good guy still lovable. It was subversive because of the culture today where modernism demands different angles to everything. 300's very monolithic nature was audacious because of its very primitiveness. The imagery of the movie could also be said to be vaguely fascist, specially in regards to the Spartans excessive pride in their physical superiority. For a civilized audience it might be confronting that they are technically supposed to root for these guys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

Also, what was the payoff exactly? I don't remember being wowed by it.

She gets to give her own comeuppance and contribution where she murders that traitor in the senate. And above all it added context to show what the war was being fought for in the first place and what was going on at home.

It certainly does! But the criticism here is not that Superman doesn't get called out on it, is that for a movie grounded in reality, it surreally sweeps all the death and destruction under the rug. Superman isn't posed the question, the movie doesn't pose the question. No questions asked, seemingly.

I mean Superman made the ultimate sacrifice, taking the life of the last of his kind. So the deaths in the last act had to count for something. Snyder himself said that "in ancient mythology, mass deaths are used to symbolize disasters". So "Superman... is probably the closest we get. It's a way of recounting the myth".

Sndyer's version, his mythology of Superman is built upon those deaths. An inexperienced Superman killed Zod in his first costumed outing. He had to because Zod caused the death of millions and will cause the death of millions more had he lived.

The other central question posed in Day of Doom is if Superman wasn't around, would there be fewer Doomsdays (monsters seeking to confront Superman) or more Coast Citys (a disaster that only happened because Superman wasn't there)? And the answer suggested from the movie is the former!

No, sweetheart. That wasn't the only thing posed to Superman in Day of Doom, but thanks for playing. ;-) I have a link to all four books, if you need a refresher on it.

One of the reasons Day of Doom was written was because in the previous comics, not enough had been done to suggest that Superman even paused to think about all the death that had occurred.

This is why Day of Doom is relevant, both in the questions is poses and tries to answer, and how comics in general deal with death and destruction.

MOS unfolded mostly from Clark's POV. So we the audience feel over-whelmed and breathless from the battles. Imagine then what Clark would be feeling in that moment.

No, we didn't get a news report on the number of dead or injured. We didn't see Clark pulling people out of the rubble. I don't really see a need for it. What would be the point? To demonstrate that, what, he's a good guy? I mean, I don't get the obsession with the idea that the destruction had to be acknowledged.

If we're going to fall back on comic book characterizations, in Day of Doom, Superman is totally self-absorbed at first about what happens. It doesn't even occur to him at first to look beyond his own death.

Time and again in comics, we see Superman sometimes be thoughtless, not because he's a jerk, but just because he sometimes misses things. It doesn't make him horrible -- on the contrary, it makes him more interesting, because those mistakes allow his character to grow and change.

So I didn't expect or need MOS to do angst p0rn for us over the devastation of the battles. That isn't the story we were being told. We were being told the epic beginnings of our greatest modern fairy tale.

Granted, I think a lot of this discussion could have been avoided if they hadn't cut out the portion where Clark tells people to get the injured to safety while he goes to fight Zod, and if we'd seen a little more of the military and police presence on the ground, but eh.

I still think this is a lot of unnecessary wangsting on a non-issue.

__________________They say… "What an unusual person. What a smashing bonnet!"

Its not widely present in the mainstream where the hero is a toured good guy still lovable. It was subversive because of the culture today where modernism demands different angles to everything. 300's very monolithic nature was audacious because of its very primitiveness. The imagery of the movie could also be said to be vaguely fascist, specially in regards to the Spartans excessive pride in their physical superiority. For a civilized audience it might be confronting that they are technically supposed to root for these guys.

I mean, by those standards I guess you could call it subversive, but it's not subversive in any meaningful or positive way. It's not subversion targeted at mainstream society, it's subversion targeted at trends in filmmaking. Trends that are themselves subversion targeted at mainstream society. I mean technically you can call that subversion, but subverting storytelling trends that challenge ****** cultural standards by reinforcing and glorifying those ****** cultural standards isn't any kind of subversion to be proud of.

And even, by that standard, I really don't think it's all that subversive. Movies that glorify violence and aggression, movies that promote veiled fascist ideals, movies that are hyper masculine and hold up strict gender roles and a positive standard, movies that only really hold to one point of view and aren't particularly nuanced in their depiction of things, they're really not non-existant in the mainstream at all at all. 300 has all of those things in common with the Transformers movies, Gangster Squad, White House Down, that ****ing propaganda monstrosity Act of Valor, most war movies in general, and really a huge chunk of the action movies we see.

300 is very stylized and very over the top, but in terms of it's masculine and violent (as well as fairly racist) themes it seems very much in lock step with the culture of the mainstream. And even if you can call it subversive, it's subversive in a very negative way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slumcat

She gets to give her own comeuppance and contribution where she murders that traitor in the senate. And above all it added context to show what the war was being fought for in the first place and what was going on at home.

I really don't think it was effective at conveying that at all. It was easily the weakest part of the film.

No, sweetheart. That wasn't the only thing posed to Superman in Day of Doom, but thanks for playing. ;-) I have a link to all four books, if you need a refresher on it.

There's no need to be condescending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

One of the reasons Day of Doom was written was because in the previous comics, not enough had been done to suggest that Superman even paused to think about all the death that had occurred.

This is why Day of Doom is relevant, both in the questions is poses and tries to answer, and how comics in general deal with death and destruction.

Yeah, but that was on Day of Doom. Not Man of Steel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

MOS unfolded mostly from Clark's POV. So we the audience feel over-whelmed and breathless from the battles. Imagine then what Clark would be feeling in that moment.

I really don't think that was communicated by the movie, at least not very well. The movie was so disconnected from the reality of what was happening, in part because they didn't actually address the destruction, and instead focusing mostly on the spectacle of the action, that it was very hard to establish that kind of emotional connection with what was going on.

And, in any event, I would think that one of the things Clark would be feeling in that moment would be "oh my god, so much destruction and death, this is the most horrible thing I've ever seen." If the goal is for the audience to feel what he's feeling, that's more reason to address the carnage, not less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

No, we didn't get a news report on the number of dead or injured. We didn't see Clark pulling people out of the rubble. I don't really see a need for it. What would be the point? To demonstrate that, what, he's a good guy? I mean, I don't get the obsession with the idea that the destruction had to be acknowledged.

Yes, to demonstrate he's a good guy. Because without that it feels like he isn't.

In addition, it's needed because that much destruction is a huge deal, and not addressing it rings very false. To have something that significant happen and then not have the characters or the movie actually address it is incredibly distracting.

To show something that horrible and not pay even the slightest bit of reverence to it feels fake, it feels hollow, it feels cynical, and frankly it feels more than a little offensive.

On top of all that, ignoring all of that destruction and loss of life lowers the stakes and the sense of tension. If the stakes of the conflict are the lives and safety of the human race, and yet the characters and movie breeze through destruction on an enormous scale and the deaths of hundreds of thousands like it ain't no thing, the audience is less inclined to care because the movie clearly doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

If we're going to fall back on comic book characterizations, in Day of Doom, Superman is totally self-absorbed at first about what happens. It doesn't even occur to him at first to look beyond his own death.

Time and again in comics, we see Superman sometimes be thoughtless, not because he's a jerk, but just because he sometimes misses things. It doesn't make him horrible -- on the contrary, it makes him more interesting, because those mistakes allow his character to grow and change.

That would be great if any of that were actually in the movie. But it's not. None of those ideas about Superman being thoughtless or making rookie mistakes were introduced in the film. None of his mistakes were acknowledged as mistakes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

So I didn't expect or need MOS to do angst p0rn for us over the devastation of the battles. That isn't the story we were being told. We were being told the epic beginnings of our greatest modern fairy tale.

Addressing the destruction and "telling the epic beginnings of our greatest modern fairy tale" aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they kind of go hand in hand. Without addressing the loss, the epic modern fairy tale is just loud dumb and kind of cynical. If what Superman is fighting for doesn't matter to the story, then it's not a very worthwhile story.

No, sweetheart. That wasn't the only thing posed to Superman in Day of Doom, but thanks for playing. ;-) I have a link to all four books, if you need a refresher on it.

One of the reasons Day of Doom was written was because in the previous comics, not enough had been done to suggest that Superman even paused to think about all the death that had occurred.

This is why Day of Doom is relevant, both in the questions is poses and tries to answer, and how comics in general deal with death and destruction.

MOS unfolded mostly from Clark's POV. So we the audience feel over-whelmed and breathless from the battles. Imagine then what Clark would be feeling in that moment.

So I didn't expect or need MOS to do angst p0rn for us over the devastation of the battles. That isn't the story we were being told. We were being told the epic beginnings of our greatest modern fairy tale.

Thanks for the refresher, been a while since I read it.

While I agree that there needn't be 'angst porn' as you put it, wouldn't it be consistent of this Clark, in one of his angstiest renditions, to evince more angst over the killing of Zod and the deaths of so many, including his own people, indirectly brought about by him? To reflect on it beyond the primal scream?

MoS is a gritty version of the Superman-verse. Pa Kent is shown to have real fears when he replies 'maybe' to that question, when he dies in the manner he did because he felt the world isn't ready as much as Clark wasn't. Clark is alienated and feels alone for three quarters of the movie. If he'd lived most of his life angstily, wouldn't he be haunted by one of the, if not the most momentous decision of his life?

Addressing the destruction and "telling the epic beginnings of our greatest modern fairy tale" aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they kind of go hand in hand.

Yep. Isn't that Snyder's reasoning too, for featuring the death and destruction in the last act? "I wanted the movie to have a mythological feeling".

That "in other countries like Greece and Japan, myths were recounted through the generations, partly to answer unanswerable questions about death and violence. In America, we don't have that legacy of ancient mythology. Superman... is probably the closest we get. It's a way of recounting the myth."

No, we didn't get a news report on the number of dead or injured. We didn't see Clark pulling people out of the rubble. I don't really see a need for it. What would be the point? To demonstrate that, what, he's a good guy? I mean, I don't get the obsession with the idea that the destruction had to be acknowledged.

Because that's what Superman is, how he's always been portrayed, and no other interpretation or structuring of the character's learning curve regarding reckless behavior or power usage could possibly be valid.

I guess since it has been done in other films, and since it could have been done, the film not doing it here is a failure somehow.

That, or people really just cannot use their imaginations, or really need the obvious pointed out to them. To me, the fact that Superman was saving lives by stopping Zod was obvious. The destruction was obvious. The threat was obvious. The likely loss of life was obvious. And I think Superman mourned all of it after killing Zod. But I guess he needs to think everything is his fault or something at the end of the movie.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

One of Superman's fatal flaws is that he leaps before he looks and that he's naive as seen in many instances in comics. This often makes him a victim of many things such as mind control as seen in the Batman comic Hush for example and in Injustice: Gods Among Us(comic). Of course as he gets older this lessens but since it's Day 1 Year 1, it's there. Zod used Superman's inherent love of Earth's people and fact that Clark thinks fast and doesn't look before he leaps against him and pushed and goaded Superman to give him a warrior's death seeing as everything Zod cares about is gone. Seeing as a good death is its own reward is the credo the Kryptonians live by, Zod's reward is that he gets to torment the "weak and unsure" Superman from the grave about how his abilities can make him a living tool for murder. That catalyzes growth in Superman and made him realize this isn't right and that sometimes he has to step back and preserve life at all costs and not become a tool for killing by the bad guys. If Superman really had the intent to kill from the get-go he would've killed Zod even before the fight began.

So in essence Zod really won there as he used Superman just like the numerous times Lex Luthor wins by playing with the Superman's flaw of caring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Question

Because when the hero of your movie barely reacts at all to the likely death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people it kind of makes him look like a sociopath.

And, from a broader narrative standpoint, when the movie doesn't actually address the horror of what happened, when you have characters standing around in the charred remains of the downtown area of an enormous city with all of the horror and tension of first responders standing around at a car crash where mild injuries were sustained, it rings false. That level of devastation isn't something you just shrug off, you have to acknowledge it. If the movie doesn't seem to be emotionally invested in something that serious and significant then it weakens the audience's emotional investment. Plus, if the movie doesn't really treat the carnage going on as that big of a deal, it kind of deflates the stakes and tension of the climax.

And I'm not asking for Superman to give some long winded eulogy for the lives lost at the end of the battle. That would be a little better because it would at least be trying, but it would still ring false. I'm talking about reaction shots of looks for horror on the hero's face. I'm talking about actually recognizing that civilians are dying in this attack. Show the efforts to evacuate the area, show the hero at least make a token effort to save innocent people who aren't his love interest, show characters reacting to the aftermath and being emotionally effected by what happened. Little things that address what's going on on screen and ground the movie emotionally. It may seem small but it goes a long way toward making a film feel more sincere and mature about it's subject matter.

I know people are probably sick of comparing Man of Steel to The Avengers, but I think it's worth comparing here. The final fight in The Avengers was handled much better. They did all of these little things to actually engage the seriousness of what was happening. They showed people reacting to the horror of the situation, they showed the toll it was taking on the common person, they showed the steps being taken to minimize the loss of civilian life, they showed the heroes rescuing people in the midst of the battle, and they showed the heroes actively concerned for the fate of civilians and clearly stated that keeping the fighting contained to the area that was being evacuated to minimize civilian loss of life was a very deliberate part of their strategy. By the end of the battle, everyone involved is physically and emotionally drained. They're tired, they're angry, they're defiant, and it's because they've been effected by the accumulation of everything that's gone on in the climax. Superman pretty much stays in the same place emotionally throughout the climax, and the only thing that seems to change his emotional state is when he's forced to kill Zod (which is then forgotten in the next scene).

Despite being lighter in tone, The Avengers is, in this regard, a lot more mature than Man of Steel. Man of Steel tried to be more mature by going dark, but failed to engage it's subject matter in a mature way.

I think most of us are forgetting that all of this will be addressed in the sequel and that Man of Steel was probably made with the intention of sequels. David Goyer himself said at SDCC this year that the sequel will address the consequences of the first movie. So there's no need to really rant about how the intense death toll was handled in the movie when we have the entire sequel to deal with that. I think in the long run the destruction would end up serving the purpose of making Lex Luthor a more compelling character and a much stronger antagonist to Superman in his smear campaign against him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slumcat

It was extremely convenient that they on their return to earth, they smashed into the train station exactly next to where Lois was last, so that she could comfortably run in at the last moment and console him.

Because that's what Superman is, how he's always been portrayed, and no other interpretation or structuring of the character's learning curve regarding reckless behavior or power usage could possibly be valid.

No one here is saying that all possible approaches besides their ideal are completely invalid. They're saying that they didn't think the approach the movie took was very good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

I guess since it has been done in other films, and since it could have been done, the film not doing it here is a failure somehow.

That's not why people don't like the way the movie did it. You know that's not why. People here have given some very detailed explanations as to why they don't like how the film handled the end fight scene. They're all on this thread for you to read and comment on. It's fine if you disagree with them, but please actually engage with the arguments people are making. It's just polite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

That, or people really just cannot use their imaginations, or really need the obvious pointed out to them. To me, the fact that Superman was saving lives by stopping Zod was obvious. The destruction was obvious. The threat was obvious. The likely loss of life was obvious. And I think Superman mourned all of it after killing Zod.

Stories need to actually dramatize their content to have a meaningful emotional connection with the audience. Yes, it's obvious that people are dying by the thousands, but if the movie doesn't actually dramatize that then at best it feels false and hollow and and worst it feels cynical, disrespectful, and cold.

You say that you assume that Superman mourned all of it after killing Zod. But the movie doesn't show us this. We cut from Zod's death to Superman smiling and laughing in a conversation with his mother, and the next time we see Metropolis it looks like nothing ever happened. You can see why that feels really weird and makes people uncomfortable, right? You can see why that feels like the movie is completely disregarding the very serious and very obvious implications of what happened, right?

It all boils down to the old adage of "show, don't tell." The saying's as old as dirt that in a story, you have to show your audience what's happening and what it means, not just tell them about it. Having all of that destruction without dramatizing the seriousness and implications of it is telling, not through words per-se but through a very basic visual shorthand. We see all of this destruction and we're supposed to feel that there are serious stakes and these are serious things, but they don't show us the emotional and psychological toll it takes on our characters, nor does it show us the effect these events are having on the lives of the people of Metropolis. They give us images of buildings falling down and basically tell us to feel sad about it. And, sure, on an intellectual level we know it's sad, but we don't feel it in our gut the way we're supposed to, the way a movie is supposed to make us feel.

I really don't think it's a failure on the part of the audience if the filmmakers don't ground the events of their climax emotionally, and instead just throw images at us and expect us to feel things. That doesn't seem, to me, to be very effective storytelling.

I know it's probably been posted here a million times, but this article speaks to that point near perfectly, and sums up my feelings about the film pretty well:

But I guess he needs to think everything is his fault or something at the end of the movie.

No one here is advocating for that. You're making another strawman argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smallville fan

I think most of us are forgetting that all of this will be addressed in the sequel and that Man of Steel was probably made with the intention of sequels. David Goyer himself said at SDCC this year that the sequel will address the consequences of the first movie. So there's no need to really rant about how the intense death toll was handled in the movie when we have the entire sequel to deal with that. I think in the long run the destruction would end up serving the purpose of making Lex Luthor a more compelling character and a much stronger antagonist to Superman in his smear campaign against him.

I don't think that's an excuse. If you leave something absolutely vital out of your movie and then say "we'll get to it in the sequel," you still have a movie with a huge missing piece. Film series are fine, but each installment has to be self contained to an extent. The plot doesn't necessarily have to be wrapped up in each film but they still have to address things, especially things of this magnitude. Making it the focus of the next film doesn't change the fact that we cut from a destroyed metropolis to Superman smiling and joking with his mom and then cut to Metropolis where everything looks fine and like it's business as usual. Even if they pick it up in the next film, the fact that it's not addressed at all in the first one is a flaw with that movie.

I apologize for continually making this comparison, but The Avengers didn't save addressing the destruction in their climax for the sequel and it only made the film stronger.

Because that's what Superman is, how he's always been portrayed, and no other interpretation or structuring of the character's learning curve regarding reckless behavior or power usage could possibly be valid.

Agree with your point here, that Snyder and Goyer should be allowed to tell their retooling of the Superman story. That, after a fashion, Man of Steel should be treated as an Elseworlds tale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

That, or people really just cannot use their imaginations, or really need the obvious pointed out to them. To me, the fact that Superman was saving lives by stopping Zod was obvious. The destruction was obvious. The threat was obvious. The likely loss of life was obvious. And I think Superman mourned all of it after killing Zod. But I guess he needs to think everything is his fault or something at the end of the movie.

But if the movie doesn't show or hint at that, and you think that he did, aren't you drawing on the goodness of the character you already know from outside the movie? If you weren't familiar with Superman, would you be able to arrive at that thought from the movie alone? Would it have been obvious?